Let's make the example more clear.I disagree that I have to prove the fingerprint.Here is the analogy as I see it.Someone died yesterday, we found a gun and a full print on the gun. (and some other clues but let's focus on those 2)Someone was cured yesterday, we found that this person healed instantly and that the cure was permanent (and some other clues but let's focus on those 2)We find the owner of the gun and his fingerprint on the gun. We accuse him of murder and send him to prison.We find the person responsible for the instant and permanent healing, God.Such things as "real fingerprint" has been demonstrated. Same goes for the other cluesSuch things as "real instant healing" has been demonstrated. Same goes for the other cluesTherefore It hasbeen demonstrated that an alleged "God" interacts in the world and is responsible for healing people of their illnesses.As for who is God? he is the greatest possible being.

This is a false analogy (another logical fallacy). We know people make guns and that people have fingerprints b/c people have demonstrated both of those (and can do so right now - I own a gun and I have fingerprints; both I can demonstrate to anyone else independently). We do not, however, have any demonstrations of an alleged "God" doing anything. You have yet to "find" that an invisible "person" is responsible for a human being getting better. It's just your assumption (unlike that of demonstrable guns and fingerprints). So stop your bullshit already. This analogy you keep trying will fail every-single-time b/c you haven't demonstrated that a "God" thing did anything to anyone. It is still an argument from ignorance - and again CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

I don't understand. Why do you want absolutely to compare God to fingerprints when I am clearly comparing fingerprints to the instant healing? I bolded the part I think you have missed before replying.

before I answered this question (about miracles) I took time to talk with someone more knowledgeable than me in the field of miracles.

Do you understand

Regardless of whatever other concepts, ideas, instructions, questions, answers, words, letters, or muted grunts follow 'Do you understand' - when directed at Lukvance - the answer is a resolute no.

He's like talking to an NPC in an RPG - there is no process of thinkingpoor phrasing removed. His 'brain' houses a functional yet primitive word parsing engine that supports, like, 8 response branches tops. Because there are often a large-ish number of words in the posts that he is replying to, the variety of possible responses that he can post is rather large, and thus, simulates a conversation with an actual sentient creature moderately well, or at least well enough to keep actual sentient creatures engaged for a limited period of time. And to account for unexpected combinations of words, this primitive word parser has a default catch-all in case it cannot branch to a somewhat-coherent response – it will pull an ELIZA, do a basic word swap, and ask a question in return (occasionally denoting, accidentally containing a hint of mockerypoor phrasing removed.

It fits. It explains why Lukvance repeats himself, over and over and over again, as if the problems with his statements and arguments that have been directly pointed out by multiple people in multiple threads at multiple times in multiple ways hadn't even been posted. It explains why he engages in his poor phrasing removed mimicry games poor phrasing removed that seem so completely disjointed from the idea of it almost kind of constitutes a valid response.

poor phrasing removed

I have marked in red the points that Lukvance needs to take on board, and have removed various phrases and sentences that are not likely to be helpful.

jdawg70,You should not rise to provocation: your points will be lost as people concentrate on your style and presentation rather than your argument. Nor is this conducive to a reasoned debate.

Lukvance,The remaining criticisms are valid. You do not seem to be able to interact properly. jdawg70 has pointed out some traits that are simply provocative.1. Answering questions with questions2. Stating wrongly that valid points that you might have difficulty answering are “not on topic”3. Dismissing points and suggesting opening another question to discuss it4. Persisting in referring to an elemental particle when it is clear that you are wrong in all you say about it.5. Using mockery is a tool6. Being more than polite and praising anyone who agrees with you

I have mentioned before that you seem to have a controlling and manipulative style, but here it is causing the Mods more work than they have ever had before: and this is not pleasant.

That said, I congratulate you on your diligence in replying to many questions. Unless a member has been in your (minority) position, they are unlikely to realise how difficult and time consuming this is.

Please, both of you, be reasonable.

GB Mod

« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 01:56:34 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Your term for "miracles" (i.e. - God interacting with the world) is the very thing you need to prove. So you cannot say that "God interacting with the world" is proof of anything b/c you have not proven that there such a thing as "God" that interacts with the world - and that is the very point of this OP. You need to actually prove that there is a "thing" called "God" that interacts with the world - not just ASSUME it and then ASSERT it a million times.

There is a "thing" causing those people to heal. This "thing" is named God. You can give it another name if you want. But you know it is not named "median" because the clues left by this "thing" (immediate and permanent healing...etc) do not correspond to the capabilities of "median" or "Doctor X".

Your term for "miracles" (i.e. - God interacting with the world) is the very thing you need to prove. So you cannot say that "God interacting with the world" is proof of anything b/c you have not proven that there such a thing as "God" that interacts with the world - and that is the very point of this OP. You need to actually prove that there is a "thing" called "God" that interacts with the world - not just ASSUME it and then ASSERT it a million times.

There is a "thing" causing those people to heal. This "thing" is named God. You can give it another name if you want. But you know it is not named "median" because the clues left by this "thing" (immediate and permanent healing...etc) do not correspond to the capabilities of "median" or "Doctor X".

1. The existence of the graviton is not an assertion, it is a deduction.2. It starts with a hypothesis based on known particles which transmit force, and deduces that it is likely that a particle exists which transmits the force known as gravity.3. This hypothesis is tested based on observable phenomena, such as the force imparted to a nearby galaxy by the gravity well of this one, to see if it is a good explanation for those phenomena.4. Based on those tests, it was concluded that gravity acted like it was being transmitted by a particle emitted from the location of this galaxy, since the nearby galaxy moved towards the location of this galaxy when the particle would have been emitted.5. However, this does not establish that the graviton exists. It simply establishes that the hypothesis is valid as far as we know, but more testing is required until we figure out how to observe the graviton.Lukvance, if you want to write up an example using the format I gave above, feel free, but do not simply replace "graviton" with "God", as the example will make no sense whatsoever if you do it that way.

Thank you for the example. I understand how it (the example) is for things that do not exist. Could you do one with the black holes? Or anything that we know exist today only because of it's interaction with other things.

I don't understand. Why do you want absolutely to compare God to fingerprints when I am clearly comparing fingerprints to the instant healing? I bolded the part I think you have missed before replying.

If you are attempting to compare human fingerprints with what you call "instant healing" then you are still drawing a false analogy (another logical fallacy) because we already have a sufficient explanation for fingerprints (they are caused by human beings). We do not, however, have a sufficient explanation for a person getting better from being ill (which medical scientists are agnostic about) - neither can you call them "instant healings" b/c you do not know the circumstances and you have not provided us with sound reason for asserting that these instances were "healings". The term "healing" implies that someone did something to them to make them get better. But that is an assumption of yours. It is not something that has been demonstrated. The evidence shows that the people got better. That is all! And no one yet knows the reason!! The explanation of why those people got better is the question at hand - and you just asserting that it must have been a "someone" who did it (instead of a "what" that did it) is based in the argument from ignorance fallacy (and in your extreme theological presuppositions which are driving your confirmation bias). So again, you simply cannot compare finger prints (in which we know the cause) and unexplained cases of people getting better (of which we do notknow the cause). So stop with the false comparisons.

There is a "thing" causing those people to heal. This "thing" is named God. You can give it another name if you want. But you know it is not named "median" because the clues left by this "thing" (immediate and permanent healing...etc) do not correspond to the capabilities of "median" or "Doctor X".

You are using circular argument:

Firstly, if there is no god, it can have no attributes: it cannot leave "clues".

If you want a god:

1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain2. You invent a god3. You use the god to explain things you cannot understand. 4. You say the god can do magic!5. You invent a story about the god and call it "The Bible"6. In the story, the god does magic things.7. In the story, the god says he is the only god.8. One magic thing he does is miracles.9. Nobody else does this magic (although you do not say why, nor how your god does them.)10. so if anyone else says they can do magic, you tell them they are wrong because, in the story you invented, there is only one god and only he does magic.

Congratulations, you have made a god and you have given him "clues" to leave.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

And so far you haven't convinced a single person on this forum that your 'miracles' represent actual proof. It would be like using gravity to 'prove' that the graviton existed even though we have never observed or detected the graviton before. You must show that your god exists first - not through miracles which are justified as being the work of your god through theology, but through some kind of direct observation or detection of your god himself.

I am saying that Science cannot and will surely not explain miracles recognized by the Vatican.

So you're saying that if the Vatican opened its records and allowed scientists to fully and freely examine everything it considered a miracle, that they could not and surely would not be able to explain them? Not ever? I find that exceedingly doubtful, since scientific knowledge has advanced tremendously ; the only thing you are showing with such a dogmatic statement is that your mind is closed on the subject of things your church has declared miracles. Regrettable, but not surprising.

Thank you for the example. I understand how it (the example) is for things that do not exist. Could you do one with the black holes? Or anything that we know exist today only because of it's interaction with other things.

No, you do not understand; the graviton has not yet been proven to exist, but that does not mean it does not exist. We do not yet know if it exists or not, because we have not observed it, yet we suspect it exists because it explains the way gravity works fairly well. If someone ever manages to devise a way to detect the existence of the graviton, then and only then can we say that it exists.

I could indeed do one with black holes. What you do not realize is that we do not actually know if black holes exist or not. We simply know that there are gravity wells which light seemingly cannot escape from, and we have the current hypothetical model of a black hole singularity which explains it fairly well (except for the fact that singularities cannot exist as far as we know). Indeed, it is exactly that reason why scientists are still looking for a better model to explain black holes than a singularity which crushes mass down to an infinitesimal point.

We have to have actual physical evidence of something before we can definitely say it exists. If we do not have that, we cannot say for sure that it does actually exist.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I don't understand. Why do you want absolutely to compare God to fingerprints when I am clearly comparing fingerprints to the instant healing? I bolded the part I think you have missed before replying.

If you are attempting to compare human fingerprints with what you call "instant healing" then you are still drawing a false analogy (another logical fallacy) because we already have a sufficient explanation for fingerprints (they are caused by human beings). We do not, however, have a sufficient explanation for a person getting better from being ill (which medical scientists are agnostic about) - neither can you call them "instant healings" b/c you do not know the circumstances and you have not provided us with sound reason for asserting that these instances were "healings". The term "healing" implies that someone did something to them to make them get better. But that is an assumption of yours. It is not something that has been demonstrated. The evidence shows that the people got better. That is all! And no one yet knows the reason!! The explanation of why those people got better is the question at hand - and you just asserting that it must have been a "someone" who did it (instead of a "what" that did it) is based in the argument from ignorance fallacy (and in your extreme theological presuppositions which are driving your confirmation bias). So again, you simply cannot compare finger prints (in which we know the cause) and unexplained cases of people getting better (of which we do notknow the cause). So stop with the false comparisons.

I am not comparing fingerprints with the unexplained cases of people getting better. I am comparing fingerprints with ONE CLUE helping us determining why the person got better.We could have find a gun and fingerprints on it and the person died because she hit her head on the table. Gun and fingerprints are clues. With enough clues we understand the cause.When you say : "you do not know the circumstances and you have not provided us with sound reason for asserting that these instances were healings""I shared with you links that could help you reasonably assert that these persons where healed. If you don't want to trust me nor trust the professionals that were close to the patient then you are acting like Zola. Your attitude is one of mindless bigotry. It is a striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect.

Ps : We do not know the cause of a fingerprint. It could have come from a printer, a severed finger...etc We only chose that it comes from the culprit because it is the reason that makes the most sense at the time.

Ok, ok. You want a better definition of God? One that you must agree with. I'll play the dictionary for you. Since it seems too hard for you to open one.God : 1. a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed : Money was their god.

I hope that it satisfy your thirst of knowledge. I really don't understand what your counter argument is. But hey, maybe now we could move on. Or maybe you will say "that is not the definition of God" and talk about how definitions are made and how they all are based on people and how they can be wrong.

Your copy/pasting doesn't cut it. First, you just provided more than one definition. The first one says, "A being conceived..." but this OP is not about what a person can "conceive" (b/c I can "conceive" of Santa Claus - does that make him real independently?). This OP about what you can demonstrate, and first requires you to define what "thing" you are talking about - not what you can "conceive" of. Your second definition uses the word "supernatural". This is laughable because only a few pages ago you attempted to assert that (according to you) God is not supernatural! Notice your continuous flip-flopping? This is because you are stuck with irrational beliefs that are based in religious BULLSHIT and you just can't stand to admit it.

What is "the supernatural"?? What does that even mean? What are you actually referring to when you use that term?

Your third definition states that God is merely "an image" or "an idol". Is that all God is for you - a human conceived image; like Spiderman?

Lastly, your fourth definition certainly cannot be thedefinition of what God allegedly IS (according to what you seem to be trying to talk about) because it gives no characteristics (i.e. - no components and no stuff of which this alleged 'thing' is made of). Furthermore, it states money as an example of a god (which does not seem to be what you are trying to refer to). So which is it, is "God" (for you) nothing more than anything that someone "worships" or is this alleged "God" something more?? I think you are soon going to realize that when you use that word you are literally referring to no-thing (i.e. - you are not referring to any-thing).

I am not comparing fingerprints with the unexplained cases of people getting better. I am comparing fingerprints with ONE CLUE helping us determining why the person got better.We could have find a gun and fingerprints on it and the person died because she hit her head on the table. Gun and fingerprints are clues. With enough clues we understand the cause.When you say : "you do not know the circumstances and you have not provided us with sound reason for asserting that these instances were healings""I shared with you links that could help you reasonably assert that these persons where healed. If you don't want to trust me nor trust the professionals that were close to the patient then you are acting like Zola. Your attitude is one of mindless bigotry. It is a striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect.

Ps : We do not know the cause of a fingerprint. It could have come from a printer, a severed finger...etc We only chose that it comes from the culprit because it is the reason that makes the most sense at the time.

Sorry Luk, you are still in false analogy-land. We know where fingerprints come from (i.e. - people) . We do not know the cause of your "ONE CLUE". Your "ONE CLUE" is that a person got better from being sick, and that is precisely the very thing you have yet to sufficiently explain. It is completely aside from the point (red herring fallacy) to talk about whether a finger print can come from a printer, or a forgery, or anywhere else b/c in every-single case of those things we know they derived from human action. You do NOT know what caused these people to get better! I'm sorry Luk, your attempt is STILL a logically fallacious false analogy b/c you-do-not have a sufficient explanation for the cause of why certain people got better (and neither do the medical doctors!). And somehow you find the utter arrogance within yourself to pretend as if you have the answer when you do not. WOW.

Your term for "miracles" (i.e. - God interacting with the world) is the very thing you need to prove. So you cannot say that "God interacting with the world" is proof of anything b/c you have not proven that there such a thing as "God" that interacts with the world - and that is the very point of this OP. You need to actually prove that there is a "thing" called "God" that interacts with the world - not just ASSUME it and then ASSERT it a million times.

There is a "thing" causing those people to heal. This "thing" is named God. You can give it another name if you want. But you know it is not named "median" because the clues left by this "thing" (immediate and permanent healing...etc) do not correspond to the capabilities of "median" or "Doctor X".

But you have already admitted (according to your own definition) that "God" has no form and no "composition". So you cannot refer to whatever it is that caused these people to get better as "God" - b/c under that definition there is literally no-thing to affect anything (i.e. no form). You are essentially arguing, "What affected these people was 'no form and no composition' and that is irrational, nonsensical, and contradictory. More importantly, you are completely ignoring the fact that there may be many things that caused these people to get better (i.e. - natural factors that are yet unknown). At which case, you cannot call those unknown factors "God".

So this all comes back, ONCE AGAIN, to the fact that you are using an argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy b/c you are attempting to explain a mystery (i.e. - the unknown cause of why people got better) with another mystery (i.e. - an alleged formless and compositionless 'thing' that you call "God"). This attempt of yours is both logically fallacious and self-contradictory. It is for these reasons that your argument fails miserably.

HINT: Stop pretending to know what you don't know and you might actually get somewhere.

Miracle healings are going to be highly suspect as long as we are faced with ambiguous medical conditions where the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis are all less than 100% certain.[1]

I want to challenge the idea that any miracle healing happened "instantly" and was "permanent". What does it mean to heal from, say, cancer, instantly and permanently? The descriptions of miracle healings do not show any knowledge of how diseases like cancer actually work in organisms.

Cancer is not like a disease germ--ebola, malaria or smallpox-- where you have it or you don't. Most people don't have any ebola, malaria or smallpox in them, but pretty much everyone has some cancer cells in them. Most of the time, our bodies recognize them as the bad guys and take them out like the Avengers.

A person only "gets cancer" when their bodies stop recognizing and getting rid of the cancerous cells and they start to multiply out of control. So, the body already has the means to naturally get rid of cancer. Most of the time, people never even know they have any cancer cells unless they have a specific test or start having symptoms. That is the first thing to take into consideration. Cancer is not an "all or nothing" zero-sum disease. (It is not even one disease.)

No miracle needed so far. Unless the miracle is that god created the natural means whereby most people's bodies get rid of cancer cells--in which case god also miraculously created the cancer cells for the Avenger cells to get rid of in the first place![2]

Does a miracle healing from cancer mean that all the cancer cells in the patient's body de-materialized in a microsecond, leaving no trace at all of ever having been there? Does that mean that the Avenger cells woke up and destroyed all the cancerous cells like normal? Does it mean that the levels of cancerous cells has dropped from stage four to stage one?

If the miracle is permanent, is the person completely immune from even the normal level of cancerous cells in a human body? Like, could they take up smoking two packs of Camels a day, sunbathe for hours, live on barbecue and Twinkies, eat no fresh fruits and veggies, have unprotected sex with strangers everyday and remain clean of all cancer for the rest of their lives? (That would be truly miraculous!)

Again, it would be useful to compare religious people with active cancer cells who pray, with control groups of non-religious people who have active cancer cells, but who do not pray at all. Then we would be able to see if there is any significant cancer reduction in the group that believes and prays.

We could even see if breaking the groups down by religion (Catholics, Hindus, atheists, Mormons) makes any difference. My hypothesis is that there will be no difference between praying and not, and no difference by religious group, once you control for ordinary non-godly things like income levels, diet and exercise.

I wonder if any religious organization has the balls, I mean the mustard seed of faith, to fund such a study? I doubt it, because the outcome will very likely show that, other than generating positive feelings, their religion is in actual fact useless, despite their fervent belief in god.

I have found studies where people who pray, meditate, chant or join a support group, or have strong family and community ties have slightly better outcomes. Not dramatically different. And since any kind of religious activity is as useful as positive human connections, no god is needed. No particular religion is needed, either.

You can see that no relevant journal articles showed up showing any such studies have been done-- which does not mean the studies don't exist. Maybe, like all that other important data, the studies are housed in the Vatican Library. Maybe someone should tell the Vatican about the internet?

If, as we have suggested many times, the healing was of a completely unambiguous nature-- amputated foot instantly reappears and normal functioning returned, Down's Syndrome instantly disappears, child born without eyes instantly grows new ones and can see--that would be an entirely different story.

^ huh, did I not say all luk wants atheists to do is say the word god out loud so he can say we must by default believe in god on logical grounds cos we are discussing he/she/it.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Ok, ok. You want a better definition of God? One that you must agree with. I'll play the dictionary for you. Since it seems too hard for you to open one.God : 1. a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed : Money was their god.

I hope that it satisfy your thirst of knowledge. I really don't understand what your counter argument is. But hey, maybe now we could move on. Or maybe you will say "that is not the definition of God" and talk about how definitions are made and how they all are based on people and how they can be wrong.

Your copy/pasting doesn't cut it. First, you just provided more than one definition. The first one says, "A being conceived..." but this OP is not about what a person can "conceive" (b/c I can "conceive" of Santa Claus - does that make him real independently?). This OP about what you can demonstrate, and first requires you to define what "thing" you are talking about - not what you can "conceive" of. Your second definition uses the word "supernatural". This is laughable because only a few pages ago you attempted to assert that (according to you) God is not supernatural! Notice your continuous flip-flopping? This is because you are stuck with irrational beliefs that are based in religious BULLSHIT and you just can't stand to admit it.

What is "the supernatural"?? What does that even mean? What are you actually referring to when you use that term?

Your third definition states that God is merely "an image" or "an idol". Is that all God is for you - a human conceived image; like Spiderman?

Lastly, your fourth definition certainly cannot be thedefinition of what God allegedly IS (according to what you seem to be trying to talk about) because it gives no characteristics (i.e. - no components and no stuff of which this alleged 'thing' is made of). Furthermore, it states money as an example of a god (which does not seem to be what you are trying to refer to). So which is it, is "God" (for you) nothing more than anything that someone "worships" or is this alleged "God" something more?? I think you are soon going to realize that when you use that word you are literally referring to no-thing (i.e. - you are not referring to any-thing).

Keep bickering for definitions. If you think that's a good way to prove my claims wrong.As you said definition of certain terms are personal. Your red will never be my red. Your tree will never be drawn like my tree even if we are looking at the same tree. Each of us have his own definition of God. For me it is the GPB. For you it might be something else. It doesn't really matter in the case of proving his existence as the reality is that it is him that made the miracles. You want to wiggle and define God as such as it is not him, go ahead. Call a spoon a fork while you are at it. Nobody's forcing you to accept their definition.What is your point? Finding that no definition is correct so because there are no correct definition and God? Then conclude that because there is no correct definition of God there is no way to find clues about him? I mean at one point I have to be reasonable and admit that you exist. I can keep refusing to admit your existence based on your definition of yourself. But what's the point?I don't know the definition of "median" I'm pretty sure we can argue on the definition on what is human by arguing on each word used on that definition...I don't believe this would be a good counter argument. Do you?

Didn't I debunk this bullshit already? I feel like I did. I recall making a thread about this shit argument.I just defined the "GPB" as non-existent. Boom. I just defined your god as non-existent. Boom again. I just defined an even greater GPB as having killed your god. Boom a third time. I just defined (...).The ontological argument is probably more retarded than any argument you've ever put forth... and that's saying something.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I am saying that Science cannot and will surely not explain miracles recognized by the Vatican.

that sure is some arrogance there, brother. You are saying not only is nobody smart enough to figure these things out, but also that no one ever will be. I am pretty sure pride is a sin.

I'm saying that these things are already figured out and that only an idiot would think that they are not.I'm saying that smart people already looked at the event and realized what happened. They figured it out.I don't know the future. I can only see that there have been miracles for more than 2000 years and that they have the same unique answer to "who is responsible?" : "God"

You want to define God … go ahead. … Nobody's forcing you to accept their definition.

You are doing a good job of trying to force your definition on people though, aren’t you?

I warned you some time ago that your definition of “greatest” would not stand: Your god is in your mind only.

Quote

What is your point?

The point is that the religious worship a concept in their mind. God is a concept constructed from half-remembered verses, imagination, poorly explained stories, a few experiences from which the wrong conclusion was drawn and people's own opinions: it's what they think gods should be like. No two concepts are the same.

The Judeo-Christian god has faults – he admits to them in his book… this alone precludes him from being “the greatest.” He cannot cook but likes the smell of burning meat… strange that… why doesn;t he fill heaven with burning sheep? If I were God, I would.

Luk,

All you have to do is realise that you like being Catholic but you recognise that there is no logic to it.

Don’t try to tell us or prove to us that there is an invisible god somewhere who takes an interest in us – Hey… I like to think my dog understands what I say (I know she does not but it’s a comforting thought.)

Give up with this thread – it’s going nowhere as your ancient argument is dead in the water.

Firstly, if there is no god, it can have no attributes: it cannot leave "clues".

Your counter argument is meaningless. If there is no God it indeed cannot leave clues in the real world. He cannot interact with the world. We agree on that.You invention of a God doesn't make sense. You could say the same thing about everything that exist.

If you want a god:If you want a black hole1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain1. You see some things that you and your friends cannot explain2. You invent a god2. You invent Black Holes3. You use the god to explain things you cannot understand. 3. You use the Black hole to explain things you cannot understand.4. You say the god can do magic!4. You say the Black hole can do magic!5. You invent a story about the god and call it "The Bible"5. You invent a story about the black hole and call it "What is a black hole?"6. In the story, the god does magic things.6. In the story, the black hole does magic things.7. In the story, the god says he is the only god.7. In the story, the black hole is the only one responsible for this magic thing8. One magic thing he does is miracles.8. One magic thing it does is keeping the light from escaping his gravity.9. Nobody else does this magic (although you do not say why, nor how your god does them.)9. Nobody else does this magic (although you do not say why, nor how black hole does them.)10. so if anyone else says they can do magic, you tell them they are wrong because, in the story you invented, there is only one god and only he does magic.10. so if anyone else says they can do magic, you tell them they are wrong because, in the story you invented, there is only one black hole and only he does magic.

Congratulations, you have made a god and you have given him "clues" to leave.Congratulations, you have made a black hole and you have given him "clues" to leave.

You see, by using things like No2 No4 No5 No6 No9 and No10 you can create the illusion of a counter argument when in fact it is just your imagination running wild. It doesn't make sense as a counter argument.

And so far you haven't convinced a single person on this forum that your 'miracles' represent actual proof. It would be like using gravity to 'prove' that the graviton existed even though we have never observed or detected the graviton before. You must show that your god exists first - not through miracles which are justified as being the work of your god through theology, but through some kind of direct observation or detection of your god himself.

I disagree. Seeing someone heal is direct observation of god himself rearranging the molecules so the person is healed.I don't see what more direct observation or detection could there be? Do you have an idea?

I am saying that Science cannot and will surely not explain miracles recognized by the Vatican.

So you're saying that if the Vatican opened its records and allowed scientists to fully and freely examine everything it considered a miracle, that they could not and surely would not be able to explain them? Not ever? I find that exceedingly doubtful, since scientific knowledge has advanced tremendously

If you had read the book I suggested you to read, you would have realized that such records are opened and that scientist can fully and freely examine them. And wouldn't make another assumption, based on your lack of knowledge, that they are not available.

Thank you for the example. I understand how it (the example) is for things that do not exist. Could you do one with the black holes? Or anything that we know exist today only because of it's interaction with other things.

No, you do not understand; the graviton has not yet been proven to exist, but that does not mean it does not exist. We do not yet know if it exists or not, because we have not observed it, yet we suspect it exists because it explains the way gravity works fairly well. If someone ever manages to devise a way to detect the existence of the graviton, then and only then can we say that it exists.

I could indeed do one with black holes. What you do not realize is that we do not actually know if black holes exist or not. We simply know that there are gravity wells which light seemingly cannot escape from, and we have the current hypothetical model of a black hole singularity which explains it fairly well (except for the fact that singularities cannot exist as far as we know). Indeed, it is exactly that reason why scientists are still looking for a better model to explain black holes than a singularity which crushes mass down to an infinitesimal point.

We have to have actual physical evidence of something before we can definitely say it exists. If we do not have that, we cannot say for sure that it does actually exist.

That's why I love my HB example. It is something that we have proved to exist. But since I cannot use it because I will be deleted. I will ask you again :Could you do one with anything that we know exist today only because of it's interaction with other things?

You want to define God … go ahead. … Nobody's forcing you to accept their definition.

You are doing a good job of trying to force your definition on people though, aren’t you?I warned you some time ago that your definition of “greatest” would not stand: Your god is in your mind only.

Apparently you missed the part where I define God as something else than "greatest" because if you read it you wouldn't say that "You are doing a good job of trying to force your definition on people"It's the definition gave by the dictionary. Here is another one :God : the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

Lukvance, you yourself have been trying to define god. And you have made a real hash of it.

1) If god is "the greatest", then nobody should be able to imagine anything better. And everyone here can instantly imagine a better god-- just your god, plus a pleasing physical form. Boom, and there you have an even greater being than your greatest being.

2) If you then try to describe or define your god as everything (life, truth, soul, love, mind, spirit, etc) then your god is not anything in particular. You are then also saying that life, truth, soul, love, mind, spirit, etc. miraculously heal cancer, sometimes, randomly, for reasons that we cannot understand.

You might as well say the universe or the magical unicorn or Bad Santa or invisible demons from beyond the 8th dimension miraculously heal cancer, sometimes, randomly, for reasons that we cannot understand and be done with it.

Because we would have exactly the same level of knowledge as when you say your god miraculously heals cancer sometimes, randomly, for reasons that we cannot understand. Meaning we would have no more information either way.

3) You have also described your god as immaterial (not made of anything like physical matter), formless, yet including all possible forms (not big, not small, not green, not red, not smooth, not prickly, not heavy, not light, and at the same time, all of these things at once) undetectable by any human senses or by any scientific instruments.

So, you have described a being that cannot possibly be. You have basically said that your god does not exist, right there.

But despite having no physical form (or all physical forms, depending on which post you just wrote) and therefore not actually, you know, existing, this being is somehow able to interact with physical forms and do miracles. Affect cancer cells in such a profoundly huge manner as to make them disappear, for example, without physically interacting with those cells in any way. You cannot explain how a being with no physical form can interact with physical matter in such a way as to change that physical matter. That, to paraphrase a late, great scientist, would change the basic laws of physics. Captain.

The only way to tell anything about this [by definition non-existent] being is to read ancient texts by people who think they have had encounters with this [by definition non-existent] being.

Or to rely on people who claim to be experts in the study of this [by definition non-existent] being. Remember when you said that this [by definition non-existent] being is undetectable by human means? But now we are supposed to assume that there are humans that are somehow able to tell us something about this undetectable, formless, immaterial [by definition non-existent] being.

It is only when your definitions fail the smell test (meaning they stink) do you have to resort to the dictionary. And several of the dictionary definitions you yourself gave contradict you!

Don't you see how this gets frustrating to people who are actually trying to have a conversation with you?

Your counter argument is meaningless. If there is no God it indeed cannot leave clues in the real world. He cannot interact with the world. We agree on that.You invention of a God doesn't make sense. You could say the same thing about everything that exist.Since you will delete my post because I use the HB I will use the Black Hole to prove the silliness of your counter argument.

He's deleting your posts about the Higgs boson because you keep demonstrating that you do not know the first thing about it, and instead substitute it in for the word 'god' to make your arguments seem meaningful. You are doing the same thing with black holes here in this post - substituting the words "black hole" for the word 'god' and then framing an argument that a ten-year old with a minimal knowledge of science could see through.

I snipped the rest of your ridiculous argument because it's just plain insulting to read the sheer and utter ignorance you espouse in it, and I won't dignify it by quoting it here. But the last part is pretty useful, if not in the way you intended it.

Quote from: Lukvance

You see, by using things like No2 No4 No5 No6 No9 and No10false equivocation argumentsyouLukvance can create the illusion of a counter argument when in fact it is just yourhis imagination running wild. It doesn't make sense as a counter argument.

This is exactly how your attempts to equivocate valid scientific concepts such as the Higgs boson and black holes with arguments for your god come across, Lukvance. When you 'counter' by substituting "Higgs boson" or "black hole" for "god", your argument becomes totally nonsensical, and you sound uninformed - to say the very least - about the subject. People who understand science - which does not include you at this point, despite your attempts to camouflage this by aping the terminology - can easily recognize just how ridiculous your argument actually sounds, because they understand how scientific theories are actually developed.

You see, scientists didn't follow your "#2, #4, #5, #6, #9, and #10" (or any of the other #s you put here) when they came up with the hypothesis of a black hole singularity. They didn't make up the idea of a black hole, they didn't claim it could do magic, they didn't make up a backstory about a black hole, they didn't claim the black hole did magic things in this nonexistent backstory you just dreamed up for your example, they didn't claim 'nobody' (which is just silly - as they never claimed black holes were beings, let alone sentient beings) else could do this 'magic', and they most certainly did not claim that there was only one black hole.

The only thing you demonstrated here is that you are no more knowledgeable about black holes than you are about the Higgs boson. I'm sure you won't like being told that, so allow me to play the world's tiniest violin in sympathy for you. But you brought it on yourself, as usual. Here's a thought - instead of playing substitution word games, how about you actually post real information about how black holes were discovered, and then put together a similar process by which your god could be discovered? You might actually learn something by doing it that way.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Your counter argument is meaningless. If there is no God it indeed cannot leave clues in the real world. He cannot interact with the world. We agree on that.You invention of a God doesn't make sense. You could say the same thing about everything that exist.Since you will delete my post because I use the HB I will use the Black Hole to prove the silliness of your counter argument.

He's deleting your posts about the Higgs boson because you keep demonstrating that you do not know the first thing about it, and instead substitute it in for the word 'god' to make your arguments seem meaningful. You are doing the same thing with black holes here in this post - substituting the words "black hole" for the word 'god' and then framing an argument that a ten-year old with a minimal knowledge of science could see through.

I snipped the rest of your ridiculous argument because it's just plain insulting to read the sheer and utter ignorance you espouse in it, and I won't dignify it by quoting it here. But the last part is pretty useful, if not in the way you intended it.

Quote from: Lukvance

You see, by using things like No2 No4 No5 No6 No9 and No10false equivocation argumentsyouLukvance can create the illusion of a counter argument when in fact it is just yourhis imagination running wild. It doesn't make sense as a counter argument.

This is exactly how your attempts to equivocate valid scientific concepts such as the Higgs boson and black holes with arguments for your god come across, Lukvance. When you 'counter' by substituting "Higgs boson" or "black hole" for "god", your argument becomes totally nonsensical, and you sound uninformed - to say the very least - about the subject. People who understand science - which does not include you at this point, despite your attempts to camouflage this by aping the terminology - can easily recognize just how ridiculous your argument actually sounds, because they understand how scientific theories are actually developed.

You see, scientists didn't follow your "#2, #4, #5, #6, #9, and #10" (or any of the other #s you put here) when they came up with the hypothesis of a black hole singularity. They didn't make up the idea of a black hole, they didn't claim it could do magic, they didn't make up a backstory about a black hole, they didn't claim the black hole did magic things in this nonexistent backstory you just dreamed up for your example, they didn't claim 'nobody' (which is just silly - as they never claimed black holes were beings, let alone sentient beings) else could do this 'magic', and they most certainly did not claim that there was only one black hole.

The only thing you demonstrated here is that you are no more knowledgeable about black holes than you are about the Higgs boson. I'm sure you won't like being told that, so allow me to play the world's tiniest violin in sympathy for you. But you brought it on yourself, as usual. Here's a thought - instead of playing substitution word games, how about you actually post real information about how black holes were discovered, and then put together a similar process by which your god could be discovered? You might actually learn something by doing it that way.

LOLEXACTLY! WE AGREE THAT HIS ARGUMENTS WERE NON SENSE.The purpose of switching "words" is underlining that the counter argument doesn't make sense. People who understand miracles -wich doen not include Graybeard at this point- can easily recognize just how ridiculous his argument actually sounds, because they understand how God theories are actually developed.

You see Theologians didn't follow his "#2, #4, #5, #6, #9, and #10" (or any of the other #s Graybeard put there) when they came up with the hypothesis of a God. They didn't make up the idea of God, they didn't claim it could do magic, they didn't make up a back story about God, they didn't claim God did magic things in this nonexistent back story he just dreamed up for his example, and they most certainly did not claim that there was only one God!

Thank you for understanding (or at least underlining) the point I was trying to make :

[in reply to Graybeard]Your counter argument is meaningless. Your invention of a God doesn't make sense.[...]I will use the Black Hole to prove the silliness of your counter argument.

When I used the HB it was for the same purpose. Underlining the silliness of your counter arguments.I am NOT actually saying that the Black Hole is an invention.I am NOT actually saying that the HB is whatever silly argument brought by you who forced me to use this to show how ridicule the argument is!

as far as ridiculous arguments go......start at luk's first post and go from there.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?